Gov't Report Defers to Political Correctness on Fort Hood Shooting

Most sentient Americans had one question in the wake of the massacre at Fort Hood last November: How on earth could the Army have allowed to remain in its ranks a soldier known to espouse the supremacist, seditious ideology that justifies murderous jihad?

Now, thanks to an official inquiry's report released Friday, we have the answer.

Incredibly, though, that answer is not to be found within the 86-page document from the "Department of Defense Independent Review Related to Fort Hood."

Rather, it is evident from what the report does not say.

Like its name, the independent review co-chaired by former Clinton Army Secretary Togo West and former Chief of Naval Operations Vern Clark elides the central fact:

The murder of 12 servicemen and women and one civilian at Fort Hood, Texas, on Nov. 5 was indeed an act of jihad, or Islamic "holy war."

Incredibly, there is exactly one reference to the word "Islam" or its derivatives in the entire report. It is found only in a footnote, which cites a publication whose title is "Countering Violent Islamic Extremism."

No mention is made at all of "jihad" or "Shariah," the ideology that, according to authoritative Islam, requires its adherents to engage in holy war.

Neither, for that matter, are the following terms ever used: "Muslim," "Muslim Brotherhood," "Salafi," "al Qaeda" or "enemy." Even President Obama's favored euphemism, "violent extremism" is not employed, ever.

Instead of even alluding to the wellspring of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's antipathy towards this country and his comrades, the review goes to absurd lengths to leave the obvious unsaid.

It tells us that "signs" of the "alleged perpetrator's" mindset, without telling us what the signs were. It suggests a problem with "officership standards," again without making clear how those standards should be changed.

The review concludes with a recommendation for close monitoring of what it calls "indicators of potential violence," as though that potential is something that can be reliably ascertained, let alone precluded, without acknowledging the underlying cause.

Instead, we are told that what is needed is a "Secretary of Defense Initiative on Indicators of Violence" or even more absurdly, a "Defense Committee on Recognition of the Indications of Violence."

These august institutions would, if Messrs. West and Clark have their way, be tasked to "gather, analyze and interpret data useful in identifying indicators of potential for violent action and create a comprehensive and usable catalogue of those indicators with constant updates."

Worse yet, they envision having these bodies "composed of acknowledged experts drawn from inside and outside the Department, such as academia, research institutes, business, former public service and the like."

As things stand now, among those used for this purpose would almost certainly be operatives of various Muslim Brotherhood front organizations.

Such adherents to Shariah have contributed materially to our present fix with their "sensitivity training" of government personnel and their exclusive and manipulative facilitation of official "Muslim outreach" programs.

The West-Clark review is a prime example of the sort of systematic dumbing-down the Brothers have achieved of the military's "situational awareness" — and that of the American government more generally — about the threat posed by them and their fellow stealth jihadists.

Tragically, at a moment when we urgently need clarity about that threat, not more dissembling, we have gotten pap, not answers.

The West-Clark review has properly been scathingly criticized by, among others, retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters as evidence of a far-larger crisis.

In his New York Post column on Saturday, Peters wrote, "This report's spinelessness is itself an indictment of our military's failed moral and ethical leadership."

The problem, however, is not simply one of failed leadership that feels compelled to defer to "political correctness."

Properly understood, the West-Clark review and the institutional mind-set it reflects really amount, instead, to collective acts of submission — the literal meaning of the word "Islam" and what its Shariah ideology requires of everyone, adherents and non-adherents alike.

If we are to prevent such an unacceptable outcome and defeat those seeking to impose it, or even just to reduce the danger of further, needless loss of American lives, we must say the unsayable: Adherents to the ideology of Shariah are our enemies, just as were the Nazis, the fascists, and the communists.

Like these other ideologues, their unalterable objective is the destruction of our Constitution, democratic political system, and freedom-loving country.

Whether they seek these ends through overtly terrifying violence or through stealthy jihad, adherents to Shariah have no place in our military, in our government or, for that matter, in our mosques.

Those who act on these necessary precepts in the armed forces, in the intelligence and law enforcement communities, in other government agencies or among the public at large must know what will be said of them from here on out: Far from being branded as "racists," "bigots," "Islamophobes" or simply "politically incorrect," their countrymen will give them the names they will have earned — "patriots" and "heroes."

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for The Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio.